Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Has anyone here (theist or Atheist) actually managed to convince a member of the other side of the existance, or lack of, a "hands on" deity?

If so, what specifically did you use as your persuasive arguments?

Have you yourself converted from one side to the other? What made you do so, and why did this make you give up your previous assertions?

Ian

I assume most of us have seen conversions. People convert to stuff all the time. I've seen several atheists convert to whatever they converted to and many theists from whatever religion become atheists.

I myself went from evangellical -> atheist/agnostic ->reformed Christian.

Has anyone here (theist or Atheist) actually managed to convince a member of the other side of the existance, or lack of, a "hands on" deity?

If so, what specifically did you use as your persuasive arguments?

Have you yourself converted from one side to the other? What made you do so, and why did this make you give up your previous assertions?

Ian

I assume most of us have seen conversions. People convert to stuff all the time. I've seen several atheists convert to whatever they converted to and many theists from whatever religion become atheists.

I myself went from evangellical -> atheist/agnostic ->reformed Christian.

I have never understood that term "reformed Christian". What parts of Christianity were reformed to make it work for you?

Feel free to PM me if you wish

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

I went from Apathetic (didn't care or think it mattered) to agnostic to Christian.

The person to whom I most credit my conversion is Dr. Timothy J. Keller, founding pastor or Redeemer Presbyterian Church of New York City, simply because he didn't appeal to people on "It's in the Bible, it must be true!" bases, but rather used simple, clear, well-thought-out logic. He often stated my own oppositions to Christianity in a way that was better than I would have phrased it, and then illustrated where the cracks in the oppositions were.

But plenty of people have heard him and not been converted, which is why I believe the Bible when it talks about God having to be the one who converts people slowly towards belief in Him. (but that's an entirely different can of worms)

I went from Apathetic (didn't care or think it mattered) to agnostic to Christian.

The person to whom I most credit my conversion is Dr. Timothy J. Keller, founding pastor or Redeemer Presbyterian Church of New York City, simply because he didn't appeal to people on "It's in the Bible, it must be true!" bases, but rather used simple, clear, well-thought-out logic. He often stated my own oppositions to Christianity in a way that was better than I would have phrased it, and then illustrated where the cracks in the oppositions were.

But plenty of people have heard him and not been converted, which is why I believe the Bible when it talks about God having to be the one who converts people slowly towards belief in Him. (but that's an entirely different can of worms)

I'd be interested to see how logic can be used to explain the Bible. Got an example?

Feel free to PM me as well.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

I am an atheist Jesus story fan and don't reject the g-o-d word, as it is merely a science word for "everything unknown". I run a busy music studio house. I've done alot of "converting", especially of ho hum "moderates", who now are not afraid to say they are atheists or certianly not christian nor religious. I have "converted" fundy's into moderates.

I use the style of Alan Watts and similar .... My pen name alone is a big help and clue. My friends mostly get it and chuckle. Nice to be "saved", and that is ATHEIST! Xainity is so polluted with the likes of talented Paul, and idol worship. The NT is a mess.

I might say, "You and everyone is the christ too .... I am an atheist for jesus, and god, the force by different definitions. The bible NT is mostly a poor representation of this jesus "buddha" philosophy with a simple message of ONE, in them superstitious times. I share your awe, g-awe-d , but lets be 21st century about it. Why invent idols, that is wrong.... Yeah, I feel the awe, sure, call it g-awe-d, but let's not invent fantasy ideas and call them truth nor believe any dogma"...... etc.

Re-post:

As cool Alan Watts wrote: "The religion of Jesus was that he knew he was a son of God, and the phrase "son of " means "of the nature of," so that a son of God is an individual who realizes that he is, and always has been, one with God. "I and the Father are one." .......... and, "Let this mind be in you." that is to say, let the same kind of [rational] consciousness be in you that was in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ knew he was God." [ you and all are christ too ]

"Wake up" [said a buddha] and find out eventually who you also really are [ god ]. In our culture of course, they'll say you're crazy or you're blasphemous, and they'll either put you in jail or in the nut house (which is the same thing). But if you wake up in India and tell your friends and relations, "My goodness, I've just discovered that I'm God," they'll laugh and say, "Oh, congratulations, at last you found out." ~ Alan Watts

My many RRS posts are directed mostly at the believers, and it's a way of sharing with my fellow atheists my method of de-converting the hocus pocus clans.

Long story short: I had some questions growing up and then went to college, took a science class and it was all downhill from there.

I'd like to think I deconverted some people myself but I doubt I did little more than question them and they figured it out themselves - pretty much like my story. One of my family members and some of my friends from back in my Catholic Schools days have been 'deconverted' - so to speak - this way.

I think it's great that this site and other efforts help so many people but it's rather absurd when you think about it - a second grader could figure out that religion is all a bunch of crap.

I have never understood that term "reformed Christian". What parts of Christianity were reformed to make it work for you?

Feel free to PM me if you wish

A simple definition of reformed Christian is someone who holds to the heritage of the protestant reformation of the 16/17th centuries. They are in many different denominations thought excluded from a few. For example, you won't find any in the Catholic church (The Reformation was againt the Catholic church) and you won't find any in methodist churchs(the Methodist churches were a response to the reformed churches). It's complex and hard to describe. Reformed people tend to talk a lot about the 5 solas and calvinism but it extends way past that. http://www.apocalipsis.org/reformed.htm though frankly reading most web sites in favor of reformed christianity won't help an ahtiest because they already assume you are a christian.

Personally, I think it's the most intellectual version of Christianity (yes yes I know mock and laugh). Reformed people tend to spend a lot of time reading books by dead people and writing long theological books.

Why not just say I am a Jesus fan, it's my favorite inspiration. Aren't religious labels dividing and cause of conflict. Geezz, Christianity and Islam have so much ugly history. I am a Jesus, Buddha Confucius, Taoist, Hindu fan.

Seems maybe zen-ish taoish buddhism is my favorite, eastern thought. Wasn't that like the best jesus philosophy? Geez that bible is a mess. Would a wise jesus approve of christianity? How about the famous buddha? What would them two debate???

I am an atheist because I am anti-theism. (Pantheism is much different) Do any brands of christianity not worship idols? The desert religions say we are not god, and isn't that wrong, and idol erecting, self god separation, against the jesus message of "one" with the thingy, all the cosmos?

Have you yourself converted from one side to the other? What made you do so, and why did this make you give up your previous assertions?

Yep.

Christian->atheist->Deist

I was raised Christian, and to be honest I hated it. I pretty much thought God was watching my every move, I wouldn't even swear, in fact I thought God was out to get me. The funny thing is, nobody in my family was overtly religious, and I never paid attention in church, so I have no idea where that came from. Anyway, I'm pretty awkward around other people and the fact people thought I was weird didn't help either so basically the only people I spent time with were religious people. It was like the only time I was actually accepted when I was around them.

Then came High School. It was a Catholic school, but I've never seen so many anti-Theistic atheists in one place. I would hear them trash talk religion so much I was afraid to bring up my beliefs. Then they course they focused on me for my Theism and other reasons. Remeber when I said I thought God was out to get me? Well, now I believed it, in fact I thought God just plain hated me, but then again I thought pretty much everyone hated me. I had like only one friend who was religious and he had religious friends so they helped my out. I guess this is why I don't bring up my Theism IRL anymore. If someone asks I just change the subject, if they press it further I tell them to suck a cock. I also suppose this is where my snarky/snide attitude came from.

Anyway, then it was off to university first as a Chemistry major. During the classes I got to thinking how everyone said that religion was a fairy tale or 'for dummies' etc... I've always took an interest in science classes, but I guess university got me more in the mindset, since you take much more science in the classes. And hence began my journey to atheism. I was thinking those kids were right and the fact my brother was an atheist and reinforced what the kids said.

Then, ironically enough, my brother lent me a copy of the God Delusion, I guess he still thought I was a Theist. So anyway, I started reading it, and it actually made me angry. I flipped through it reading and thought Dawkins was an obnoxious prick. Now I have no idea why, but I did, and I never got to reading it fully. So I rushed to the bookstore and started looking for Theist books. I found Haisch and Miller, started reading those. I then 'cross referenced' them with the God Delusion, that is read Miller's argument, then some of Dawkins'. And so I guess began my journey to Deism.

Now after being on this site for a while, as much as I hate to admit it, got me to realizing that maybe Dawkins isn't that much of a douche. I started feeling more comfortable reading atheist literature (I read 'Breaking the Spell' by Dennett...)

Now I read both Theist and atheist books. I have a paperback copy of God Delusion, and going to try to read more Dennett. I don't know why, but I like Dennett's writing style. I'm also going to read Polkinghorne. I have a system that for every Theist book I read, I read an atheist one, okay now I'm just rambling.

I went from Apathetic (didn't care or think it mattered) to agnostic to Christian.

The person to whom I most credit my conversion is Dr. Timothy J. Keller, founding pastor or Redeemer Presbyterian Church of New York City, simply because he didn't appeal to people on "It's in the Bible, it must be true!" bases, but rather used simple, clear, well-thought-out logic. He often stated my own oppositions to Christianity in a way that was better than I would have phrased it, and then illustrated where the cracks in the oppositions were.

But plenty of people have heard him and not been converted, which is why I believe the Bible when it talks about God having to be the one who converts people slowly towards belief in Him. (but that's an entirely different can of worms)

"simple, clear, well-thought-out logic."

This is exactly what I used to confirm the non-existence of a God, I would love to know how it works the other way.

Thanks everyone for sharing their views and stories, I've enjoyed reading them and learning a little more about the people on this board.

I also think I may have sparked a logic proves/disproves God debate, which I look forward to reading with interest...

For my own part I was not raised with any particular bias on the subject - My mother is a spiritualist and my father was solidly grounded in logic and science, but neither really pushed me in any particular direction. I went to a protistant school (I'm from England) and was made to sing hymns and pray every morning, but never took them seriously. I learnt evolution in school, chemistry, physics, logic and religious studies as well, and my logical brain soon removed any notion of a "greater than I" deity - history is littered with dead gods. I realised Morality does not come from god, it's the other way round.

As I've matured I've come to see religion as both a crutch and a curse for mankind - a crutch because people believe that it is necessary in order to lead a good life, and without it morality and corruption would envelop us (one only has to look at a standard cross section of atheists to see that non-religious people lead lives as morally as theists) and a curse because Religion divides nations, causes mistrust, War, Death and hatred.

Gay people will burn in Hell

Maryrdom and causing the death of others will lead to rewards in paradise

The pursuit of science such as stem cell research should not be done as it is an affront to god

All of these and more inhibit the potential of what the human race could be, and that saddens me.

I went from Apathetic (didn't care or think it mattered) to agnostic to Christian.

The person to whom I most credit my conversion is Dr. Timothy J. Keller, founding pastor or Redeemer Presbyterian Church of New York City, simply because he didn't appeal to people on "It's in the Bible, it must be true!" bases, but rather used simple, clear, well-thought-out logic. He often stated my own oppositions to Christianity in a way that was better than I would have phrased it, and then illustrated where the cracks in the oppositions were.

But plenty of people have heard him and not been converted, which is why I believe the Bible when it talks about God having to be the one who converts people slowly towards belief in Him. (but that's an entirely different can of worms)

Quote:

but rather used simple, clear, well-thought-out logic.

What logic is that? Thinking entities with no physical form or sperm magically knock up 9-14 year old girls?

And as far as "slowly" is concerned, that makes sense. Take 1,000 years and over 40 authors to get your word out?

"Hey guys, I isolated you on a tiny violent rock in a violent universe, just to test your love for me. Just consider it a fraternity hazing. If you can handle the paddle with the logo, "Gama Iota Delta" God is dead"

[Mod Edit: Fixed Quote... I think]

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Cpt, many have mocked and laughed at me. I think you just a few times. You are unique in your very style, when serious and humororous.

I came to RRS, to dare traditional ideas, knowing I would be misunderstood by many, and knowing I am no writer. Here you are in an old thread, soon after my arrival , post 2. LOL. I really dig RRS. I've learned so much here.

Funny, trying to understand, i am god as you posts. Thanks for the help, and laughs RRS.

A few people have asked for an example of the type of logic that lead me towards belief in Christianity, sure - I'd love to contribute.

Now in order to do this right, and to be fair, I have to, unfortunately, address only one type or argument against God. There is a type of argument that isn't exactly what you would call an argument against the existence of God, but rather, let's call it the argument that, "You cannot know there is a God even if there is one."

I pick this one because, as a New Yorker, it's one I run into a lot. In fact, it's probably the one you run into the most. The argument usually goes something like this:

"I don't know if there is a God or not, but nobody can know - nobody can know. I do not believe that any one group or religion has the "Truth" if what you mean by "Truth" is the "Absolute Truth". I believe that different religions or world views may have a piece of the Truth, and some may have more than others - but nobody's got all the answers- nobody."

The argument then proceeds by using the illustration of the Elephant and the Blind Men, have you heard this illustration?

"Imagine five blind men who all come upon an elephant. Each one grabs the elephant at a different place. One grabs a tusk, one grabs a leg, one an ear, one the tail and one feels the stomach. The man grabbing the leg says, 'Elephants are round and thick.' The man grabbing the ear says, 'No no no, elephants are thin and flat.' The man grabbing the tusk says, 'You're both wrong, elephants are hard and pointy.', etc.

The illustration goes that each one of the blind men thinks they know the whole elephant, but in reality each one of the blind men can only sense part of the truth, but nobody can sense the whole truth,

"...and that is just like the religions of the world. Every religion has a little bit of 'wisdom', but the fact is, nobody has the whole truth, nobody can see the whole picture, nobody can say, 'I know God truly!'" finishes the agnostic/skeptic/atheist.

"Now here is the problem with this argument," according to Leslie Newbigin, a British Scholar, "The real point of the story is overlooked. The story is told from the point-of-view of someone who is not blind, but can see what the blind men are unable to grasp, that is - the full reality of the Elephant. And only the one who sees the whole elephant can know the blind men are blind."

Do you see what he's saying? The only way that you could know that the blind men only sense part of the elephant, is if you think you're not blind.

"What this means, then, is that there is an appearance of humility in the protestation that 'The Truth is greater than any one of us can grasp,'. But if this is used to invalidate all claims to discern the truth, it is, in fact, an arrogant claim to the kind of knowledge, which is superior, that you've just said that no religion has," finishes Leslie Newbigin.

Follow that? To say, "I don't know if any religions are true," is an act of humility. To say, "None of the religions have the truth, no one can be sure there is a God." is actually to assume you have the kind of knowledge you've just said no other person and no other religion has.

Now I know that I have not just proven the existence of God to you, I know that. I want to only remind you before I go that I was asked to give a single example of the logic that lead me toward belief in God. This argument was one I used in the past, and the logic that followed it was the same logic that got me to rethink my premise. That's all.

There are others, though, if you're interested. Also, the link below will take you to a resource website for Tim Keller, he's pretty big in New York City among the skeptical crowd because, as I said before, he doesn't resort to the "It's in the Bible - therefore it's true." type of arguments, but rather thinks things through and doesn't carry any fire-and-brimstone in him, which most of my atheist friends tell me they appreciate even when they don't agree with him, so check some of it out if you get a chance:

Cpt, many have mocked and laughed at me. I think you just a few times. You are unique in your very style, when serious and humororous.

I came to RRS, to dare traditional ideas, knowing I would be misunderstood by many, and knowing I am no writer. Here you are in an old thread, soon after my arrival , post 2. LOL. I really dig RRS. I've learned so much here.

Funny, trying to understand, i am god as you posts. Thanks for the help, and laughs RRS.

There you go again, fun Cpt. How so? Example? I assume you aren't god, and sure I understand why you say that, but it seems obvious you don't understand me, and so I have stayed with this message of many, that you are god. Is that what you don't understand? My words are childish , are they not? What confusion ????

A few people have asked for an example of the type of logic that lead me towards belief in Christianity, sure - I'd love to contribute.Now in order to do this right, and to be fair, I have to, unfortunately, address only one type or argument against God. There is a type of argument that isn't exactly what you would call an argument against the existence of God, but rather, let's call it the argument that, "You cannot know there is a God even if there is one."I pick this one because, as a New Yorker, it's one I run into a lot. In fact, it's probably the one you run into the most. The argument usually goes something like this:"I don't know if there is a God or not, but nobody can know - nobody can know. I do not believe that any one group or religion has the "Truth" if what you mean by "Truth" is the "Absolute Truth". I believe that different religions or world views may have a piece of the Truth, and some may have more than others - but nobody's got all the answers- nobody."The argument then proceeds by using the illustration of the Elephant and the Blind Men, have you heard this illustration?"Imagine five blind men who all come upon an elephant. Each one grabs the elephant at a different place. One grabs a tusk, one grabs a leg, one an ear, one the tail and one feels the stomach. The man grabbing the leg says, 'Elephants are round and thick.' The man grabbing the ear says, 'No no no, elephants are thin and flat.' The man grabbing the tusk says, 'You're both wrong, elephants are hard and pointy.'

And one man decides to make stuff up and decides to say “elephants are avocados ” here you have a baseless assumption all the man/religions are not made up or corrupted so what if I made up my own religion will you consider it as a peace of truth ? Do you consider the statement “elephants are avocados” valid in your argument ?

skeptnick wrote:

, etc.The illustration goes that each one of the blind men thinks they know the whole elephant, but in reality each one of the blind men can only sense part of the truth, but nobody can sense the whole truth,"...and that is just like the religions of the world. Every religion has a little bit of 'wisdom', but the fact is, nobody has the whole truth, nobody can see the whole picture, nobody can say, 'I know God truly!'" finishes the agnostic/skeptic/atheist."Now here is the problem with this argument," according to Leslie Newbigin, a British Scholar, "The real point of the story is overlooked. The story is told from the point-of-view of someone who is not blind, but can see what the blind men are unable to grasp, that is - the full reality of the Elephant. And only the one who sees the whole elephant can know the blind men are blind."Do you see what he's saying? The only way that you could know that the blind men only sense part of the elephant, is if you think you're not blind."What this means, then, is that there is an appearance of humility in the protestation that 'The Truth is greater than any one of us can grasp,'. But if this is used to invalidate all claims to discern the truth, it is, in fact, an arrogant claim to the kind of knowledge, which is superior, that you've just said that no religion has," finishes Leslie Newbigin.Follow that? To say, "I don't know if any religions are true," is an act of humility. To say, "None of the religions have the truth, no one can be sure there is a God." is actually to assume you have the kind of knowledge you've just said no other person and no other religion has.

Now I know that I have not just proven the existence of God to you, I know that. I want to only remind you before I go that I was asked to give a single example of the logic that lead me toward belief in God. This argument was one I used in the past, and the logic that followed it was the same logic that got me to rethink my premise. That's all.There are others, though, if you're interested. Also, the link below will take you to a resource website for Tim Keller, he's pretty big in New York City among the skeptical crowd because, as I said before, he doesn't resort to the "It's in the Bible - therefore it's true." type of arguments, but rather thinks things through and doesn't carry any fire-and-brimstone in him, which most of my atheist friends tell me they appreciate even when they don't agree with him, so check some of it out if you get a chance:http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissionary/2005/07/tim_keller_arti.html

Hmmm your argument strangely addresses a rebuttal not a concept. Well disproving a counter argument doesn’t disprove the point or premises example :

***I believe the earth is round because the sky is blue. ***

Stating that the color of the sky have nothing to do with the form of the earth disproves this argument however doesn’t disprove the roundness of the earth (didn’t address evidence or predictions of round earth theory or any earth form ).It’s bad logic to believe this. Besides you presented a error in your rebuttal question you assumed there must be a god it’s a hidden statement let me demonstrate :

***Have you stopped raping your mother ?***

Here I have hidden the statement “you rape your mother” in a question or :

***We all know you rape your mother however we may never know how you do this.***

The statement “you rape your mother regardless of the lack of evidence” is assumed in this statement .Please note I’m not stating that “you rape your mother” I have given this example because its easy to see the error in it.

Now because I’m a Gnostic atheist (I’m 101 % cretin that god is non existent and I have proven this) I would like to here more arguments that are logically consistent and don’t make appeals to emotions. I would like to give you a counter question because you could think about it or present it to your pastor. Its one of my questions that I include in my personal collection of god killers

god actually disproves himself. Well the first point addressed why god would create humans in the first place however it proved to be something more destructive to gods existence.

Christians argue that god always existed and don’t have a beginning however lets think about this for one second if point 0 represents the moment when god started to created our universe what did he do before this ? Exist ? How long did god exist alone with no need for humans ? One millennium ? A googolplex of centuries ? A long period of time and he didn’t need humans.

However we need to realize that god existent a entire eternity , and then suddenly and magically the eternity ended and this is impossible , because if we regress in god-time he never did have a beginning the time that god existed before creation of us is infinite and can not end !

So is it going to be :A) god did have a beginning

or

B)god never created us because it takes a entire eternity to arrive at the point 0.

On the side note god existed a insane amount of time without humans and never felt the need to create us (in a entire eternity) so why would god create us if he existed forever without us and didn’t have a problem ?

Like you can see every type of god (playing agnostic doesn’t help) disproves himself and makes a loving creator that haze no beginning impossible , in other words god disproves himself .

BTW: Welcome to the forum I would like to here your responseBest wishes carx.

Sorry, I only have time to respond to the first part of your post this morning, let me take some time and write out a proper response to the rest and submit it by this evening, or possibly tomorrow.

(Really quick, do you have a link or something that will explain how to do that thing where you highlight someone else's quotes and then allow you to repost them, highlighted, in your new message and then type under it? I haven't learned how to do that yet)

So anyway, I think you may have missed the point I was addressing in my statement. I wasn't proving God to you or anyone else - I was attempting to outline why the argument that "No one can know whether or not there is a God, even if there is one," does not hold water.

For example, Christopher Hitchens often asserts that, even if there were a God, the ones who believe in Him couldn't possibly know His mind, what he's thinking, what he wants for your life, etc. And I agree with him to the extent that we can't know anything about God that God Himself does not reveal it to us.

Now a lot of skeptical people in New York that I converse with on a day-to-day bases use Christopher Hitchens' statement and take it one step further, they say that not only could no one know what God wants/thinks even if He existed, but that no one can know whether or not God exists in the first place.

And my counter argument was simply this - to say that no one can know whether or not God exists sounds very humble at first, and it is often stated by a very humble skeptic, but underneath that humility is actually the belief that you (the skeptic) have the kind of knowledge that, in your argument, you state no one can have.

In other words, the argument that no one can know whether or not God exists, even if He does, is an argument that deflates itself. Therefore, it is not that far fetched to believe that if God exists, you could know something, or some things, about God. (I will address how I believe this is possible in my next post.)

Sorry if I've made this more confusing than it needs to be, I hope that helps a bit.

I just want to make sure that, when you say I haven't proven that God exists using this argument, you know that I agree with you. I haven't proven God exists using this argument.

I'll write up my next argument which deals with "Proving God exists" and also respond to the second half of what you said - thanks for your time!

-Skeptnick

p.s. don't forget, if you have a link to a "how to highlight someone else's quotes and include them in your thread" post or something, include it in your response if you can - thanks in advance!

... to say that no one can know whether or not God exists sounds very humble at first, and it is often stated by a very humble skeptic, but underneath that humility is actually the belief that you (the skeptic) have the kind of knowledge that, in your argument, you state no one can have.

This is not an argument at all, or at best it is an irrelevant one concerning the term "to know". And it is an egregious one to level against atheists since it is theists who most avail of the semantic shortcut you highlight.

Which is why it is better to tackle the issue from a more realistic angle, one that is not dependent on mutual agreement regarding the semantic niceties of "knowing" but grounded instead in a more rational and common application of the term. For something to be known to exist it should be observable, deductible from observation, and exhibit predictable behaviour which itself is verifiable. On this basis, except as a common delusion shared by many people, god does not exist. Of course as a popular delusion it exists in droves - with a huge number of subscribers to the fantasy and a resultant plethora of variations. This inability for humans to agree on its form, nature and purpose confirms its status as a delusion. A popular delusion, but a delusion none the less.

So I submit that it is you who should seriously reconsider your use of the term "to know" in relation to the phantom whose existence you have bought into, and refrain from inferring that the rest of us - who at least "know" what "to know" is - that we are one semantic sleight of hand away from conversion ourselves. Your particular delusion might entail the unfounded belief in an eternal afterlife and as much time to disappear as far up your metaphysical ass as you wish in the study of the application of one semantic obscurity but for the rest of us who know what's what, life is way too short for such stupidity. We have talents to hone, good deeds to do, people to help, lives to live. We don't have time for the crapology which attempts to take credit for our goodness while tying up our intellect and time to the extent that it interferes with us doing it.

Some day you just might glimpse the absolute vanity and sheer waste of time involved in religious belief. You sure won't get a pastor to help you see it though!

I'm sorry I have to type this, because it strips away your ability to hear my asking this question in a genuinely interested fashion, and as a result you might think I'm baiting you or trying to to make you look bad. I'm not.

I'm interested to know what observable, deductible, predictable behaviors lead you to the conclusion that, in a point/counter-point conversation, it's best to insult the person you're debating. And since this conversation is happening under a thread entitled "Successful Conversions?", I'd also be interested in knowing whether or not mocking someone publicly is really the most effective technique to use when attempting to connect with them and get them to think their way from where they are, to where you are?

Perhaps you can explain what on earth insulted you and why. Then I could answer your question.

As for getting you to "think your way from where you are to where I am", I would heartily recommend that you proceed under your own volition, wherever you end up, and without guidance from pastors or near-to-anonymous internet correspondents.

"Your particular delusion might entail the unfounded belief in an eternal afterlife and as much time to disappear as far up your metaphysical ass as you wish in the study of the application of one semantic obscurity but for the rest of us who know what's what, life is way too short for such stupidity. We have talents to hone, good deeds to do, people to help, lives to live. We don't have time for the crapology which attempts to take credit for our goodness while tying up our intellect and time to the extent that it interferes with us doing it." (emphasis added)

I don't know what to tell you, if you don't think this statement is condescending and insulting, there is really nothing I could say that would change your mind.

I would simply argue that this type of statement is not one you would find in a court of law, because it is not an appeal rationality. Rather, it's purpose appears to be to reduce the idea of the belief in God to a caricature, and to directly accuse myself and those who do believe in God of being deluded idiots who have and are wasting our lives on "crapology".

I don't know what type of Theists you have encountered in the past, what they've said to you, how they've made you feel. I've run into a few very condescending and fire-and-birmstone people on both sides, but let's strike a deal, because you seem like a nice guy and I'd rather really talk to you than just throw propaganda at you, so how's this - I won't take any of the negative experiences I've am having or have had with Atheists in the past and project them onto you, and all I ask in return is that you do the same for me. If you've met Theists who waste their lives on crapology, that's fine, I think I may have run into a few of those myself, in fact who hasn't? But I'm willing to start this from square one if you want to. I can make a case, or you can, and then we can go point/counter-point for however long we want.

Obviously you are not going to be able to change my mind in a single post, nor am I going to be able to change yours in a single post. I only suggest that we remain patient with one another, understand that it's going to be a process, and try to really extend empathy to one another's position so that we don't fix ourselves in such a way as to prevent any real dialogue from taking place.

Of course it's not a statement one finds in a court of law. This is not a court of law. And if you find my viewpoint on the silliness that you have bought into condescending and insulting then all I can say is that it might very well be because my opinion, based on something more than blind faith, actually carries more weight than supposition (what I suspect you are prey to) and can therefore only offend the sensibilities of a person who has done the opposite. No one likes to be shown up for a fool, and therefore the truth is often insulting - but no less the truth for that.

I have met many sorts of theists, since you ask, and they do occupy a gamut of personalities from the mildly to the grossly offensive. But they have all succeeded in insulting my intelligence - I'll give them that. I also forgive a lot of them (not the aggressive ones) since they know no better.

I haven't a clue what you call "square one" or why you think this should be an attempt by either of us to convince the other of their case. I am an atheist. There is no case "for" god that you can make. It is a non-starter. Don't waste your time.

Nor will I waste mine, which is why I cut to the quick and gave you my stance in my first post. It is not meant to be offensive, just a marker for your future reference that you don't automatically garner respect for your religious beliefs (something that actually marks you out as gullible) and nor are you expected to respond, except rationally. Welcome to the real world.

Sorry, I only have time to respond to the first part of your post this morning, let me take some time and write out a proper response to the rest and submit it by this evening, or possibly tomorrow.

Don’t worry I’m in a different time zone , I normally respond in a day or so.

skeptnick wrote:

(Really quick, do you have a link or something that will explain how to do that thing where you highlight someone else's quotes and then allow you to repost them, highlighted, in your new message and then type under it? I haven't learned how to do that yet)

So anyway, I think you may have missed the point I was addressing in my statement. I wasn't proving God to you or anyone else - I was attempting to outline why the argument that "No one can know whether or not there is a God, even if there is one," does not hold water.

For example, Christopher Hitchens often asserts that, even if there were a God, the ones who believe in Him couldn't possibly know His mind, what he's thinking, what he wants for your life, etc. And I agree with him to the extent that we can't know anything about God that God Himself does not reveal it to us.

Now a lot of skeptical people in New York that I converse with on a day-to-day bases use Christopher Hitchens' statement and take it one step further, they say that not only could no one know what God wants/thinks even if He existed, but that no one can know whether or not God exists in the first place.

And my counter argument was simply this - to say that no one can know whether or not God exists sounds very humble at first, and it is often stated by a very humble skeptic, but underneath that humility is actually the belief that you (the skeptic) have the kind of knowledge that, in your argument, you state no one can have.

In other words, the argument that no one can know whether or not God exists, even if He does, is an argument that deflates itself. Therefore, it is not that far fetched to believe that if God exists, you could know something, or some things, about God. (I will address how I believe this is possible in my next post.)

Sorry if I've made this more confusing than it needs to be, I hope that helps a bit.

I just want to make sure that, when you say I haven't proven that God exists using this argument, you know that I agree with you. I haven't proven God exists using this argument.

I'll write up my next argument which deals with "Proving God exists" and also respond to the second half of what you said - thanks for your time!

-Skeptnick

p.s. don't forget, if you have a link to a "how to highlight someone else's quotes and include them in your thread" post or something, include it in your response if you can - thanks in advance!

Well OK you seam to write something confusing or I’m having a language based problem here. Well it seams you address a common argument against god that I can not deduce. O and your rebottle has a problem “what if one of the blind man started to make stuff up” ?

Do someone have a link to the how to use the quote function tutorial ?

Basically you click the quote button under the post of the person you wish to quote. Then you have funny coding that I think you get how to use you simply delete the text you wish not to quote or move the quote tags around.

Basically everything that is between[quote=name ][ / quote] gets quoted with the name of the person quoted is everything you write in the field name

You need to have them without the spaces my example will look something like this [quote=name ]XYZ [ / quote] if executed you have

Getting back to the original question regarding conversions, I tend not to judge such things in terms of success or failure - at least not until long after the supposed "epiphany" (if I can borrow a Greek term back from the god squad). Some people, for a multitude of reasons though none of them healthy, are adept at investing their persona in what they think, hope or believe are ready-made models. Organised religion caters very much for that kind of weakness, but so too does any "ism", often inadvertently, and atheism is no different.

I like to think that I have been influential on several occasions in liberating certain people from the shackles of imposed irrationality, but I tend to shudder a little when I see someone who was once a rabid devotee of one manifestation of that irrationality become equally rabid a proponent of "atheism", often without having thought the implications fully through. It seems to me that they have simply found another club to join and thereby simply are continuing to derive a definition for their persona that they cannot seem to generate from within.

A real success, in my view, is helping a person attain the self-confidence, knowledge, and faith in their own judgement which frees them from that dependency, whatever they were using as a support. Almost invariably such success can be measured in the degree of realism with which they afterwards perceive both themselves and the world around them, and equally invariably such an attitude acts as a foil against religious overtures (which appeal most to people's weaknesses, not their strengths, despite the language often used). Atheism, without it even having to be labelled as such, follows suit automatically, I find.

I can't speak for all atheists of course, but many, if not a majority, but still not all, at some point in the past had some sort of theism. So to ask the question in the OP is kinda odd, when the answer is obvious.

For most, losing deity belief is not a overnight thing, that is rare. For me it took years from going from Christianity, to agnostic theism, to agnostic atheism.

Most here are deconverts, however a few were lucky enough to have parents who did not subject them to brainwashing and grew up atheists.

I have run into people who have claimed to be atheists who converted, but when you scratch the surface, it turns out they define "atheist" according to their theism which means anything that god doesn't like.

In any case, humans give up one position for another, all the time which is nothing but evidence that they changed positions. Emotional reactions such as the fallacy of "awe" or the fear of a frightening event is not the core reason someone should hold a position. The only core and most solid reason to hold a position is simple, EVIDENCE.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Most people convert from one strongly held belief to another for a myriad of personal/subjective reasons. To me this is a good thing. We are holistic beigns not logical machines. Many times I've seen the same pattern. A persons converts from whatever to whatever and then goes to find arguments to bolster that decision.

My personal "journey of faith" shows the subjective nature of conversion. I started out as a wacky charismatic naming and claiming my way through high school. When i got to college I became an evangelical because that was who I was around and it was a more intellectual form of Christianity. Instead of just babbling nonesense and expecting god to drop porsches on our heads we read the occasional book.

Then came my atheist phase. Which was the weirdest conversion. It wasn't proceeded by any study or looking into argumentation. I sat praying one night and poof i turned into Brian37. The whole god idea was completely absurd how stupid had I been, etc.

Then began the 3 year long investigation. I realized I need to decide for myself what to believe, what world view to hold. It was a very difficult tasks. I read every book I could find, had many philosophical discussions, and late night walks. I would keep coming to roadblocks or crossroads were their seemed to be insufficient evidence to make a decision.

I was an atheist all my life up until 9 months ago, i was 20, now im 21.

the atheist world view makes no sense and has no hope whatsoever, not even in men.

now christianity on the other hand, now i understand life, its meaning and purpose, i know the one true god that i denied intellectually my whole life, and that it applys to everything and everyone on this planet.

I thank God for what he has done to me and revealed himself to me through his word, his son and his spirit.

I was an atheist all my life up until 9 months ago, i was 20, now im 21.

Is it me or are recent converts about the most annoying people ever?

DeLgAdO wrote:

the atheist world view makes no sense and has no hope whatsoever, not even in men.

Liar. You know very well it makes perfect sense. You just didn't like the consequences.

I find the whole "no hope in atheism" thing to be a waggly red herring. I get my hope from other sources, I don't need an imaginary friend to manage that.

DeLgAdO wrote:

now christianity on the other hand, now i understand life, its meaning and purpose, i know the one true god that i denied intellectually my whole life, and that it applys to everything and everyone on this planet.

I thank God for what he has done to me and revealed himself to me through his word, his son and his spirit.

Yeah yeah, wank wank.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different."
- Douglas Murray

With Mr. Invisible Sky-Fairytm you get to pass off all your faults and mistakes. "God will make me better". You've said it in other words in other posts.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different."
- Douglas Murray

You have hardly left childhood .... geezz to be 21. Jesus inspired you ? Well good. But I must tell you, jesus was an atheist, like a buddha, and for goodness sakes god is not a he. Grow up punk. Jesus would kick your arrogant ass, mentally, and call you Satan.

Definition of Satan / Devil : WRONG THINKING.

9 months ago you were no atheist, because to even have a sense of truth, you would never say what you have. Never. Sure I understand, but fuck your idol shit.

In all caring and concern, stay away from the church and preachers, for they are the corruptors of the ancient Twilight Zone writings of our cool ancient ancestors.

You know GOD? So please explain TIME to us ......

Hey young man, I love ya, so I yell, and that atheist jesus smashed the church, and yeah it's me jesus resurrected again, still trying to tell the world, We are One , We are GOD, as all is ONE. Life is not a gift.

Thats right. I am justified in his sight, declared legally right with him.

Pure hubris.

Why would a being who is omnipotent give two shakes of the shit-pot about one puny little animal on the surface of one of trillions of little dirt balls orbiting a completely average little star?

I'll tell you why: the sky-fairy is imaginary and the one doing the imagining wants to be special.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different."
- Douglas Murray

Anthropomorphism is simply a means for God (a spiritual being) to communicate truth about His nature to mankind, a physical being. Since man is a physical being, man is limited in his understanding of those things beyond the physical realm, and anthropomorphism in Scripture helps man to understand who God is. God does not possess physical human characteristics. However, sometimes figurative language used in Scripture assigns human characteristics to God in order to make it possible for man to understand God.

Use the quote button or have the sense to at least mention who you are responding to, Delgado.

Este hombre del "Delgado" es patético.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different."
- Douglas Murray